How to replace an element of a string at a given index - f#

string s = "foo.bar"
s[s.LastIndexOf(".")] = "-"
It sounds dead simple in c-like languages, but drives me nuts in F#
my code:
let sb = new StringBuilder(s)
sb.[s.LastIndexOf(".")] <- '-'
let s = sb.ToString()
Is there more elegant way to do this? Like using |> ? I don't want to explicitly declare a new variable sb.

Alternatively, you can do this as follows:
let s = "foo.bar"
let index = s.LastIndexOf('.')
let s1 = s |> String.mapi(fun i x -> if i=index then '-' else x)
s1 |> printfn "%A"
Print: "foo-bar"
Link: https://dotnetfiddle.net/5FjFR1

There are already good suggestions here. Here's another way to do it:
let s = "foo.bar"
let idx = s.LastIndexOf '.'
let replaced = s.Substring(0, idx) + "-" + s.Substring(idx + 1)

You could work with char array directly instead of wrapped with StringBuilder.
let replaceAt i c (s: string) =
let arr = s.ToCharArray()
arr.[i] <- c
String arr
"foo.bar" |> replaceAt 3 '-'
Some tests comparing it with this one using mapi—
let replaceAt2 index x s = s |> String.mapi (fun i x -> if i=index then '-' else x)
let test f =
let rec loop n =
if n > 0 then
let x = "foo.bar" |> f 3 '-'
loop (n - 1)
loop 10000000
test replaceAt // Real: 00:00:01.188, CPU: 00:00:01.201, GC gen0: 168, gen1: 168, gen2: 0
test replaceAt2 // Real: 00:00:05.587, CPU: 00:00:05.584, GC gen0: 275, gen1: 275, gen2: 0

Just for the fun of it I tried a "more" functional approach with List.foldBack. Try the code below for yourself at .NET Fiddle.
let replaceLastOf candidate replacement l =
let replaceAndPrepend x (xs, found) =
if not found && x = candidate
then (replacement::xs, true)
else (x::xs, found)
fst <| List.foldBack replaceAndPrepend l ([], false)
let replaceLastCharOf candidate replacement (str:string) =
List.ofSeq str
|> replaceLastOf candidate replacement
|> Array.ofList
|> System.String.Concat
Usage:
printfn "%A" (replaceLastOf 1 9 [1;3;1;4;1])
printfn "%A" (replaceLastCharOf '.' '-' "f.oo.bar")
Output:
[1; 3; 1; 4; 9]
"f.oo-bar"

Related

F# functional style approach much slower

Trying to learn F#, by solving some programming puzzles. I don't want to add too many details about the problem as I don't want to spoil the fun for others.
Basically, the issue is to find all 4-uples { (i,j,k,l) | i ^ j ^ k ^ l != 0 } with no repetition (eg., (1,1,1,2) and (1,1,2,1) are the same and should be counted just once).
I have found a O(n^3) approach which works, please see countImperative(a,b,c,d) below. But I also tried to refactor the code as to get rid of the nested for loops. However, I could not do so without a significant performance penalty. It was my impression that F#'s syntactic sugar would allow a more concise style (using pipes and folds), letting the compiler do the heavy-lifting to produce comparably fast code (compared to my nested for loops). The big performance hit comes from the calculation of the partial2 sum.
Here's the code:
open System
open System.Diagnostics
open System.Collections
module quadruples =
[<EntryPoint>]
let main argv =
let input = "2000 2000 2000 2000"
let ordered = [ for x in input.Split([|' '|]) -> Convert.ToInt32(x) ] |> List.sort
let a,b,c,d = ordered.[0], ordered.[1], ordered.[2], ordered.[3]
let inner(a,b) = a * (a-1) / 2 + a * (b-a)
let sw = new Stopwatch()
sw.Start()
let partial1 = [ 1.. b ] |> List.fold (fun acc j -> acc + (int64 ((min a j) * inner(c-j+1, d-j+1)))) 0L
sw.Stop()
let elapsed1 = (sw.ElapsedMilliseconds |> double) / 1000.0
printfn "Partial1: %f s" elapsed1
sw.Restart()
let combinations = [ for i in 1..a do for j in i+1..b do yield (j,i^^^j) ]
let range = [ 1..c ]
let partial2 = combinations |> List.fold(fun acc (j,x) -> acc + (range |> List.skip(j-1) |> List.fold(fun acc k -> if k ^^^ x < k || k ^^^ x > d then acc + 1L else acc) 0L)) 0L
sw.Stop()
let elapsed2 = (sw.ElapsedMilliseconds |> double) / 1000.0
printfn "Partial2: %f s" elapsed2
printfn "Functional: %d, Elapsed: %f s" (partial1 + partial2) (elapsed1 + elapsed2)
// "imperative" approach
let countImperative(a,b,c,d) =
let mutable count = seq { 1..b } |> Seq.fold (fun acc j -> acc + (int64 ((min a j) * inner(c-j+1, d-j+1)))) 0L
for i in 1..a do
for j in i+1..b do
let x = i ^^^ j
for k in j..c do
let y = x ^^^ k
if y < k || y > d then
count <- count + 1L
count
sw.Restart();
let count = countImperative(a,b,c,d)
sw.Stop()
printfn "Imperative: %d, Elapsed: %f s" count ((sw.ElapsedMilliseconds |> double) / 1000.0)
0 // return an integer exit code
So my question was, if there is any way to speed up the code (specifically the calculation of partial2) while maintaining F#'s nice syntax.

The mutable variable 'index' is used in an invalid way in seq {}?

In the following code, the compiler gets error on index <- index + 1 with error
Error 3 The mutable variable 'index' is used in an invalid way. Mutable variables cannot be captured by closures. Consider eliminating this use of mutation or using a heap-allocated mutable reference cell via 'ref' and '!'. d:\Users....\Program.fs 11 22 ConsoleApplication2
However, it has been defined as mutable?
let rec iterateTupleMemberTypes (tupleArgTypes: System.Type[]) (columnNames: string[]) startingIndex =
seq {
let mutable index = startingIndex
for t in tupleArgTypes do
match t.IsGenericType with
| true -> iterateTupleMemberTypes (t.GetGenericArguments()) columnNames index |> ignore
| false ->
printfn "Name: %s Type: %A" (columnNames.[index]) t
index <- index + 1
yield (columnNames.[index]), t
} |> Map.ofSeq
let myFile = CsvProvider<"""d:\temp\sample.txt""">.GetSample()
let firstRow = myFile.Rows |> Seq.head
let tupleType = firstRow.GetType()
let tupleArgTypes = tupleType.GetGenericArguments()
let m = iterateTupleMemberTypes tupleArgTypes myFile.Headers.Value 0
An idiomatic version of this might look like the following:
#r #"..\packages\FSharp.Data.2.2.2\lib\net40\FSharp.Data.dll"
open FSharp.Data
open System
type SampleCsv = CsvProvider<"Sample.csv">
let sample = SampleCsv.GetSample()
let rec collectLeaves (typeTree : Type) =
seq {
match typeTree.IsGenericType with
| false -> yield typeTree.Name
| true -> yield! typeTree.GetGenericArguments() |> Seq.collect collectLeaves
}
let columnTypes = (sample.Rows |> Seq.head).GetType() |> collectLeaves
let columnDefinitions = columnTypes |> Seq.zip sample.Headers.Value |> Map.ofSeq
let getDefinitions (sample : SampleCsv) = (sample.Rows |> Seq.head).GetType() |> collectLeaves |> Seq.zip sample.Headers.Value |> Map.ofSeq
Personally, I wouldn't be concerned too much about the performance of Map vs Dictionary (and rather have the immutable Map) unless there are hundreds of columns.
The statement after it, let index = 0, shadows your definition of mutable variable index. Also, to make mutables work in sequences, you need refs. https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd233186.aspx
Suggested by #Ming-Tang, I changed the mutable variable to ref and it works now. However, is it a way not to use mutable/ref variable at all?
let rec iterateTupleMemberTypes (tupleArgTypes: System.Type[]) (columnNames: string[]) startingIndex =
seq {
let index = ref startingIndex
for t in tupleArgTypes do
match t.IsGenericType with
| true ->
yield! iterateTupleMemberTypes (t.GetGenericArguments()) columnNames !index
| false ->
printfn "Name: %s Type: %A" (columnNames.[!index]) t
yield (columnNames.[!index]), t
index := !index + 1
} |> dict
let myFile = CsvProvider<"""d:\temp\sample.txt""">.GetSample()
let firstRow = myFile.Rows |> Seq.head
let tupleType = firstRow.GetType()
let tupleArgTypes = tupleType.GetGenericArguments()
let m = iterateTupleMemberTypes tupleArgTypes myFile.Headers.Value 0

f# sequence of running total

Ok, this looks like it should be easy, but I'm just not getting it. If I have a sequence of numbers, how do I generate a new sequence made up of the running totals? eg for a sequence [1;2;3;4], I want to map it to [1;3;6;10]. In a suitably functional way.
Use List.scan:
let runningTotal = List.scan (+) 0 >> List.tail
[1; 2; 3; 4]
|> runningTotal
|> printfn "%A"
Seq.scan-based implementation:
let runningTotal seq' = (Seq.head seq', Seq.skip 1 seq') ||> Seq.scan (+)
{ 1..4 }
|> runningTotal
|> printfn "%A"
Another variation using Seq.scan (Seq.skip 1 gets rid of the leading zero):
> {1..4} |> Seq.scan (+) 0 |> Seq.skip 1;;
val it : seq<int> = seq [1; 3; 6; 10]
> Seq.scan (fun acc n -> acc + n) 0 [1;2;3;4];;
val it : seq<int> = seq [0; 1; 3; 6; ...]
With lists:
> [1;2;3;4] |> List.scan (fun acc n -> acc + n) 0 |> List.tail;;
val it : int list = [1; 3; 6; 10]
Edit: Another way with sequences:
let sum s = seq {
let x = ref 0
for i in s do
x := !x + i
yield !x
}
Yes, there's a mutable variable, but I find it more readable (if you want to get rid of the leading 0).
Figured it was worthwhile to share how to do this with Record Types in case that's also what you came here looking for.
Below is a fictitious example demonstrating the concept using runner laps around a track.
type Split = double
type Lap = { Num : int; Split : Split }
type RunnerLap = { Lap : Lap; TotalTime : double }
let lap1 = { Num = 1; Split = 1.23 }
let lap2 = { Num = 2; Split = 1.13 }
let lap3 = { Num = 3; Split = 1.03 }
let laps = [lap1;lap2;lap3]
let runnerLapsAccumulator =
Seq.scan
(fun rl l -> { rl with Lap = l; TotalTime = rl.TotalTime + l.Split }) // acumulator
{ Lap = { Num = 0; Split = 0.0 }; TotalTime = 0.0 } // initial state
let runnerLaps = laps |> runnerLapsAccumulator
printfn "%A" runnerLaps
Not sure this is the best way but it should do the trick
let input = [1; 2; 3; 4]
let runningTotal =
(input, 0)
|> Seq.unfold (fun (list, total) ->
match list with
| [] ->
None
| h::t ->
let total = total + h
total, (t, total) |> Some)
|> List.ofSeq

Combine memoization and tail-recursion

Is it possible to combine memoization and tail-recursion somehow? I'm learning F# at the moment and understand both concepts but can't seem to combine them.
Suppose I have the following memoize function (from Real-World Functional Programming):
let memoize f = let cache = new Dictionary<_, _>()
(fun x -> match cache.TryGetValue(x) with
| true, y -> y
| _ -> let v = f(x)
cache.Add(x, v)
v)
and the following factorial function:
let rec factorial(x) = if (x = 0) then 1 else x * factorial(x - 1)
Memoizing factorial isn't too difficult and making it tail-recursive isn't either:
let rec memoizedFactorial =
memoize (fun x -> if (x = 0) then 1 else x * memoizedFactorial(x - 1))
let tailRecursiveFactorial(x) =
let rec factorialUtil(x, res) = if (x = 0)
then res
else let newRes = x * res
factorialUtil(x - 1, newRes)
factorialUtil(x, 1)
But can you combine memoization and tail-recursion? I made some attempts but can't seem to get it working. Or is this simply not possible?
As always, continuations yield an elegant tailcall solution:
open System.Collections.Generic
let cache = Dictionary<_,_>() // TODO move inside
let memoizedTRFactorial =
let rec fac n k = // must make tailcalls to k
match cache.TryGetValue(n) with
| true, r -> k r
| _ ->
if n=0 then
k 1
else
fac (n-1) (fun r1 ->
printfn "multiplying by %d" n //***
let r = r1 * n
cache.Add(n,r)
k r)
fun n -> fac n id
printfn "---"
let r = memoizedTRFactorial 4
printfn "%d" r
for KeyValue(k,v) in cache do
printfn "%d: %d" k v
printfn "---"
let r2 = memoizedTRFactorial 5
printfn "%d" r2
printfn "---"
// comment out *** line, then run this
//let r3 = memoizedTRFactorial 100000
//printfn "%d" r3
There are two kinds of tests. First, this demos that calling F(4) caches F(4), F(3), F(2), F(1) as you would like.
Then, comment out the *** printf and uncomment the final test (and compile in Release mode) to show that it does not StackOverflow (it uses tailcalls correctly).
Perhaps I'll generalize out 'memoize' and demonstrate it on 'fib' next...
EDIT
Ok, here's the next step, I think, decoupling memoization from factorial:
open System.Collections.Generic
let cache = Dictionary<_,_>() // TODO move inside
let memoize fGuts n =
let rec newFunc n k = // must make tailcalls to k
match cache.TryGetValue(n) with
| true, r -> k r
| _ ->
fGuts n (fun r ->
cache.Add(n,r)
k r) newFunc
newFunc n id
let TRFactorialGuts n k memoGuts =
if n=0 then
k 1
else
memoGuts (n-1) (fun r1 ->
printfn "multiplying by %d" n //***
let r = r1 * n
k r)
let memoizedTRFactorial = memoize TRFactorialGuts
printfn "---"
let r = memoizedTRFactorial 4
printfn "%d" r
for KeyValue(k,v) in cache do
printfn "%d: %d" k v
printfn "---"
let r2 = memoizedTRFactorial 5
printfn "%d" r2
printfn "---"
// comment out *** line, then run this
//let r3 = memoizedTRFactorial 100000
//printfn "%d" r3
EDIT
Ok, here's a fully generalized version that seems to work.
open System.Collections.Generic
let memoize fGuts =
let cache = Dictionary<_,_>()
let rec newFunc n k = // must make tailcalls to k
match cache.TryGetValue(n) with
| true, r -> k r
| _ ->
fGuts n (fun r ->
cache.Add(n,r)
k r) newFunc
cache, (fun n -> newFunc n id)
let TRFactorialGuts n k memoGuts =
if n=0 then
k 1
else
memoGuts (n-1) (fun r1 ->
printfn "multiplying by %d" n //***
let r = r1 * n
k r)
let facCache,memoizedTRFactorial = memoize TRFactorialGuts
printfn "---"
let r = memoizedTRFactorial 4
printfn "%d" r
for KeyValue(k,v) in facCache do
printfn "%d: %d" k v
printfn "---"
let r2 = memoizedTRFactorial 5
printfn "%d" r2
printfn "---"
// comment out *** line, then run this
//let r3 = memoizedTRFactorial 100000
//printfn "%d" r3
let TRFibGuts n k memoGuts =
if n=0 || n=1 then
k 1
else
memoGuts (n-1) (fun r1 ->
memoGuts (n-2) (fun r2 ->
printfn "adding %d+%d" r1 r2 //%%%
let r = r1+r2
k r))
let fibCache, memoizedTRFib = memoize TRFibGuts
printfn "---"
let r5 = memoizedTRFib 4
printfn "%d" r5
for KeyValue(k,v) in fibCache do
printfn "%d: %d" k v
printfn "---"
let r6 = memoizedTRFib 5
printfn "%d" r6
printfn "---"
// comment out %%% line, then run this
//let r7 = memoizedTRFib 100000
//printfn "%d" r7
The predicament of memoizing tail-recursive functions is, of course, that when tail-recursive function
let f x =
......
f x1
calls itself, it is not allowed to do anything with a result of the recursive call, including putting it into cache. Tricky; so what can we do?
The critical insight here is that since the recursive function is not allowed to do anything with a result of recursive call, the result for all arguments to recursive calls will be the same! Therefore if recursion call trace is this
f x0 -> f x1 -> f x2 -> f x3 -> ... -> f xN -> res
then for all x in x0,x1,...,xN the result of f x will be the same, namely res. So the last invocation of a recursive function, the non-recursive call, knows the results for all the previous values - it is in a position to cache them. The only thing you need to do is to pass a list of visited values to it. Here is what it might look for factorial:
let cache = Dictionary<_,_>()
let rec fact0 l ((n,res) as arg) =
let commitToCache r =
l |> List.iter (fun a -> cache.Add(a,r))
match cache.TryGetValue(arg) with
| true, cachedResult -> commitToCache cachedResult; cachedResult
| false, _ ->
if n = 1 then
commitToCache res
cache.Add(arg, res)
res
else
fact0 (arg::l) (n-1, n*res)
let fact n = fact0 [] (n,1)
But wait! Look - l parameter of fact0 contains all the arguments to recursive calls to fact0 - just like the stack would in a non-tail-recursive version! That is exactly right. Any non-tail recursive algorithm can be converted to a tail-recursive one by moving the "list of stack frames" from stack to heap and converting the "postprocessing" of recursive call result into a walk over that data structure.
Pragmatic note: The factorial example above illustrates a general technique. It is quite useless as is - for factorial function it is quite enough to cache the top-level fact n result, because calculation of fact n for a particular n only hits a unique series of (n,res) pairs of arguments to fact0 - if (n,1) is not cached yet, then none of the pairs fact0 is going to be called on are.
Note that in this example, when we went from non-tail-recursive factorial to a tail-recursive factorial, we exploited the fact that multiplication is associative and commutative - tail-recursive factorial execute a different set of multiplications than a non-tail-recursive one.
In fact, a general technique exists for going from non-tail-recursive to tail-recursive algorithm, which yields an algorithm equivalent to a tee. This technique is called "continuatuion-passing transformation". Going that route, you can take a non-tail-recursive memoizing factorial and get a tail-recursive memoizing factorial by pretty much a mechanical transformation. See Brian's answer for exposition of this method.
I'm not sure if there's a simpler way to do this, but one approach would be to create a memoizing y-combinator:
let memoY f =
let cache = Dictionary<_,_>()
let rec fn x =
match cache.TryGetValue(x) with
| true,y -> y
| _ -> let v = f fn x
cache.Add(x,v)
v
fn
Then, you can use this combinator in lieu of "let rec", with the first argument representing the function to call recursively:
let tailRecFact =
let factHelper fact (x, res) =
printfn "%i,%i" x res
if x = 0 then res
else fact (x-1, x*res)
let memoized = memoY factHelper
fun x -> memoized (x,1)
EDIT
As Mitya pointed out, memoY doesn't preserve the tail recursive properties of the memoee. Here's a revised combinator which uses exceptions and mutable state to memoize any recursive function without overflowing the stack (even if the original function is not itself tail recursive!):
let memoY f =
let cache = Dictionary<_,_>()
fun x ->
let l = ResizeArray([x])
while l.Count <> 0 do
let v = l.[l.Count - 1]
if cache.ContainsKey(v) then l.RemoveAt(l.Count - 1)
else
try
cache.[v] <- f (fun x ->
if cache.ContainsKey(x) then cache.[x]
else
l.Add(x)
failwith "Need to recurse") v
with _ -> ()
cache.[x]
Unfortunately, the machinery which is inserted into each recursive call is somewhat heavy, so performance on un-memoized inputs requiring deep recursion can be a bit slow. However, compared to some other solutions, this has the benefit that it requires fairly minimal changes to the natural expression of recursive functions:
let fib = memoY (fun fib n ->
printfn "%i" n;
if n <= 1 then n
else (fib (n-1)) + (fib (n-2)))
let _ = fib 5000
EDIT
I'll expand a bit on how this compares to other solutions. This technique takes advantage of the fact that exceptions provide a side channel: a function of type 'a -> 'b doesn't actually need to return a value of type 'b, but can instead exit via an exception. We wouldn't need to use exceptions if the return type explicitly contained an additional value indicating failure. Of course, we could use the 'b option as the return type of the function for this purpose. This would lead to the following memoizing combinator:
let memoO f =
let cache = Dictionary<_,_>()
fun x ->
let l = ResizeArray([x])
while l.Count <> 0 do
let v = l.[l.Count - 1]
if cache.ContainsKey v then l.RemoveAt(l.Count - 1)
else
match f(fun x -> if cache.ContainsKey x then Some(cache.[x]) else l.Add(x); None) v with
| Some(r) -> cache.[v] <- r;
| None -> ()
cache.[x]
Previously, our memoization process looked like:
fun fib n ->
printfn "%i" n;
if n <= 1 then n
else (fib (n-1)) + (fib (n-2))
|> memoY
Now, we need to incorporate the fact that fib should return an int option instead of an int. Given a suitable workflow for option types, this could be written as follows:
fun fib n -> option {
printfn "%i" n
if n <= 1 then return n
else
let! x = fib (n-1)
let! y = fib (n-2)
return x + y
} |> memoO
However, if we're willing to change the return type of the first parameter (from int to int option in this case), we may as well go all the way and just use continuations in the return type instead, as in Brian's solution. Here's a variation on his definitions:
let memoC f =
let cache = Dictionary<_,_>()
let rec fn n k =
match cache.TryGetValue(n) with
| true, r -> k r
| _ ->
f fn n (fun r ->
cache.Add(n,r)
k r)
fun n -> fn n id
And again, if we have a suitable computation expression for building CPS functions, we can define our recursive function like this:
fun fib n -> cps {
printfn "%i" n
if n <= 1 then return n
else
let! x = fib (n-1)
let! y = fib (n-2)
return x + y
} |> memoC
This is exactly the same as what Brian has done, but I find the syntax here is easier to follow. To make this work, all we need are the following two definitions:
type CpsBuilder() =
member this.Return x k = k x
member this.Bind(m,f) k = m (fun a -> f a k)
let cps = CpsBuilder()
I wrote a test to visualize the memoization. Each dot is a recursive call.
......720 // factorial 6
......720 // factorial 6
.....120 // factorial 5
......720 // memoizedFactorial 6
720 // memoizedFactorial 6
120 // memoizedFactorial 5
......720 // tailRecFact 6
720 // tailRecFact 6
.....120 // tailRecFact 5
......720 // tailRecursiveMemoizedFactorial 6
720 // tailRecursiveMemoizedFactorial 6
.....120 // tailRecursiveMemoizedFactorial 5
kvb's solution returns the same results are straight memoization like this function.
let tailRecursiveMemoizedFactorial =
memoize
(fun x ->
let rec factorialUtil x res =
if x = 0 then
res
else
printf "."
let newRes = x * res
factorialUtil (x - 1) newRes
factorialUtil x 1
)
Test source code.
open System.Collections.Generic
let memoize f =
let cache = new Dictionary<_, _>()
(fun x ->
match cache.TryGetValue(x) with
| true, y -> y
| _ ->
let v = f(x)
cache.Add(x, v)
v)
let rec factorial(x) =
if (x = 0) then
1
else
printf "."
x * factorial(x - 1)
let rec memoizedFactorial =
memoize (
fun x ->
if (x = 0) then
1
else
printf "."
x * memoizedFactorial(x - 1))
let memoY f =
let cache = Dictionary<_,_>()
let rec fn x =
match cache.TryGetValue(x) with
| true,y -> y
| _ -> let v = f fn x
cache.Add(x,v)
v
fn
let tailRecFact =
let factHelper fact (x, res) =
if x = 0 then
res
else
printf "."
fact (x-1, x*res)
let memoized = memoY factHelper
fun x -> memoized (x,1)
let tailRecursiveMemoizedFactorial =
memoize
(fun x ->
let rec factorialUtil x res =
if x = 0 then
res
else
printf "."
let newRes = x * res
factorialUtil (x - 1) newRes
factorialUtil x 1
)
factorial 6 |> printfn "%A"
factorial 6 |> printfn "%A"
factorial 5 |> printfn "%A\n"
memoizedFactorial 6 |> printfn "%A"
memoizedFactorial 6 |> printfn "%A"
memoizedFactorial 5 |> printfn "%A\n"
tailRecFact 6 |> printfn "%A"
tailRecFact 6 |> printfn "%A"
tailRecFact 5 |> printfn "%A\n"
tailRecursiveMemoizedFactorial 6 |> printfn "%A"
tailRecursiveMemoizedFactorial 6 |> printfn "%A"
tailRecursiveMemoizedFactorial 5 |> printfn "%A\n"
System.Console.ReadLine() |> ignore
That should work if mutual tail recursion through y are not creating stack frames:
let rec y f x = f (y f) x
let memoize (d:System.Collections.Generic.Dictionary<_,_>) f n =
if d.ContainsKey n then d.[n]
else d.Add(n, f n);d.[n]
let rec factorialucps factorial' n cont =
if n = 0I then cont(1I) else factorial' (n-1I) (fun k -> cont (n*k))
let factorialdpcps =
let d = System.Collections.Generic.Dictionary<_, _>()
fun n -> y (factorialucps >> fun f n -> memoize d f n ) n id
factorialdpcps 15I //1307674368000

How to refactor F# code to not use a mutable accumulator?

The following F# code gives the correct answer to Project Euler problem #7:
let isPrime num =
let upperDivisor = int32(sqrt(float num)) // Is there a better way?
let rec evaluateModulo a =
if a = 1 then
true
else
match num % a with
| 0 -> false
| _ -> evaluateModulo (a - 1)
evaluateModulo upperDivisor
let mutable accumulator = 1 // Would like to avoid mutable values.
let mutable number = 2 // ""
while (accumulator <= 10001) do
if (isPrime number) then
accumulator <- accumulator + 1
number <- number + 1
printfn "The 10001st prime number is %i." (number - 1) // Feels kludgy.
printfn ""
printfn "Hit any key to continue."
System.Console.ReadKey() |> ignore
I'd like to avoid the mutable values accumulator and number. I'd also like to refactor the while loop into a tail recursive function. Any tips?
Any ideas on how to remove the (number - 1) kludge which displays the result?
Any general comments about this code or suggestions on how to improve it?
Loops are nice, but its more idiomatic to abstract away loops as much as possible.
let isPrime num =
let upperDivisor = int32(sqrt(float num))
match num with
| 0 | 1 -> false
| 2 -> true
| n -> seq { 2 .. upperDivisor } |> Seq.forall (fun x -> num % x <> 0)
let primes = Seq.initInfinite id |> Seq.filter isPrime
let nthPrime n = Seq.nth n primes
printfn "The 10001st prime number is %i." (nthPrime 10001)
printfn ""
printfn "Hit any key to continue."
System.Console.ReadKey() |> ignore
Sequences are your friend :)
You can refer my F# for Project Euler Wiki:
I got this first version:
let isPrime n =
if n=1 then false
else
let m = int(sqrt (float(n)))
let mutable p = true
for i in 2..m do
if n%i =0 then p <- false
// ~~ I want to break here!
p
let rec nextPrime n =
if isPrime n then n
else nextPrime (n+1)
let problem7 =
let mutable result = nextPrime 2
for i in 2..10001 do
result <- nextPrime (result+1)
result
In this version, although looks nicer, but I still does not early break the loop when the number is not a prime. In Seq module, exist and forall methods support early stop:
let isPrime n =
if n<=1 then false
else
let m = int(sqrt (float(n)))
{2..m} |> Seq.exists (fun i->n%i=0) |> not
// or equivalently :
// {2..m} |> Seq.forall (fun i->n%i<>0)
Notice in this version of isPrime, the function is finally mathematically correct by checking numbers below 2.
Or you can use a tail recursive function to do the while loop:
let isPrime n =
let m = int(sqrt (float(n)))
let rec loop i =
if i>m then true
else
if n%i = 0 then false
else loop (i+1)
loop 2
A more functional version of problem7 is to use Seq.unfold to generate an infinite prime sequence and take nth element of this sequence:
let problem7b =
let primes =
2 |> Seq.unfold (fun p ->
let next = nextPrime (p+1) in
Some( p, next ) )
Seq.nth 10000 primes
Here's my solution, which uses a tail-recursive loop pattern which always allows you to avoid mutables and gain break functionality: http://projecteulerfun.blogspot.com/2010/05/problem-7-what-is-10001st-prime-number.html
let problem7a =
let isPrime n =
let nsqrt = n |> float |> sqrt |> int
let rec isPrime i =
if i > nsqrt then true //break
elif n % i = 0 then false //break
//loop while neither of the above two conditions are true
//pass your state (i+1) to the next call
else isPrime (i+1)
isPrime 2
let nthPrime n =
let rec nthPrime i p count =
if count = n then p //break
//loop while above condition not met
//pass new values in for p and count, emulating state
elif i |> isPrime then nthPrime (i+2) i (count+1)
else nthPrime (i+2) p count
nthPrime 1 1 0
nthPrime 10001
Now, to specifically address some of the questions you had in your solution.
The above nthPrime function allows you to find primes at an arbitrary position, this is how it would look adapted to your approach of finding specifically the 1001 prime, and using your variable names (the solution is tail-recursive and doesn't use mutables):
let prime1001 =
let rec nthPrime i number accumulator =
if accumulator = 1001 then number
//i is prime, so number becomes i in our next call and accumulator is incremented
elif i |> isPrime then prime1001 (i+2) i (accumulator+1)
//i is not prime, so number and accumulator do not change, just advance i to the next odd
else prime1001 (i+2) number accumulator
prime1001 1 1 0
Yes, there is a better way to do square roots: write your own generic square root implementation (reference this and this post for G implementation):
///Finds the square root (integral or floating point) of n
///Does not work with BigRational
let inline sqrt_of (g:G<'a>) n =
if g.zero = n then g.zero
else
let mutable s:'a = (n / g.two) + g.one
let mutable t:'a = (s + (n / s)) / g.two
while t < s do
s <- t
let step1:'a = n/s
let step2:'a = s + step1
t <- step2 / g.two
s
let inline sqrtG n = sqrt_of (G_of n) n
let sqrtn = sqrt_of gn //this has suffix "n" because sqrt is not strictly integral type
let sqrtL = sqrt_of gL
let sqrtI = sqrt_of gI
let sqrtF = sqrt_of gF
let sqrtM = sqrt_of gM

Resources